Cannabis - Best as a Class B or C

Soldato
Joined
15 Mar 2007
Posts
3,160
I cannot make up my mind on this one. THC the active ingredient in the plant can in certain circumstances certain and with certain types of people especially the young with developing minds can get a psychosis which means experiencing paranoia and fear and if taken often enough (every day maybe) or in large enough. The psychosis can last a long time maybe even for life as I understand it but the risk appears small.

Is this enough of a reason ? Alcohol and fags hardly speak volumes about legalising it.

Anyone else got an opinion ?
 
Caporegime
Joined
8 Sep 2005
Posts
26,733
Location
Utopia
Class B... I smoked it solid for 4 years and in that time it more to screw my head up than anything else i've ever tried. It is HIGHLY addictive and will find whatever chinks in your mental armour it can and blow them wide open. My character changed completely, and it took me a good two years to fully recover after I quit.
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Jun 2005
Posts
7,475
If the government are starting to re-classify drugs on their potential health risks, then it should be done across the board, including the legal (and highly taxed) ones.
Richdog said:
Class B... I smoked it solid for 4 years and in that time it more to screw my head up than anything else i've ever tried. It is HIGHLY addictive and will find whatever chinks in your mental armour it can and blow them wide open. My character changed completely, and it took me a good two years to fully recover after I quit.
You smoked it solid for 4 years and became addicted? I would say your problems were due to you. And if it were class B instead of C would you have declined to use it? If you abuse anything it will be detrimental. Plenty of people require hospital treatment for their abuse of food. And plenty of people enjoy a glass of wine in the evening without becoming raving alcoholics and killing people whilst drink driving.

I, and several of my friends, have all used it in the past. We are all very normal, professional, and well balanced people. That’s because we used it, not abused it.

The drug should stay class C, or even be legalised and controlled, as the government are doing this to score points, not for any real reason.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
24 Oct 2002
Posts
13,543
Location
Bucks and Edinburgh
Richdog said:
Class B... I smoked it solid for 4 years and in that time it more to screw my head up than anything else i've ever tried. It is HIGHLY addictive and will find whatever chinks in your mental armour it can and blow them wide open. My character changed completely, and it took me a good two years to fully recover after I quit.

Sorry but thats garbage, and it says more about you than the cannabis. It is very well known that cannabis is not physically addictive although it can be phsycologically, but so can anything be to the weak willed.

Like Skunkworks, I smoked amongst other things and did so for over 8 years virtually every day over that period. That was 10 years ago and I just stopped as I'd had enough of it and am a normal working proffesional and havent touched anything since.
 
Caporegime
Joined
8 Sep 2005
Posts
26,733
Location
Utopia
Bear said:
Sorry but thats garbage, and it says more about you than the cannabis. It is very well known that cannabis is not physically addictive although it can be phsycologically, but so can anything be to the weak willed.

Like Skunkworks, I smoked amongst other things and did so for over 8 years virtually every day over that period. That was 10 years ago and I just stopped as I'd had enough of it and am a normal working proffesional and havent touched anything since.

When I said addictive I didn't mean physically and I didn't specify exactly what I meant, of course I meant psychologically. And it doesn't make me weak-willed that I got addicted to it and it affected me so badly, it was just a time in my life when I went off of the rails, so please stop talking like you know anything about me. It affects everyone in different ways, and I am one of the unlucky ones that it affected badly. Some of my friends weren't affected at all. That doesn't make it any less dangerous.

Skunkworks said:
I, and several of my friends, have all used it in the past. We are all very normal, professional, and well balanced people. That’s because we used it, not abused it.

What do you want, a sodding medal? I bow to thee o' normal, professional, balanced individual... lol...
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
8 Sep 2005
Posts
26,733
Location
Utopia
Jaap74 said:
doesn't matter if it's B or C or Q...... people will smoke it regardless

True, but the penalties for getting caught with it and supplying it etc will be more severe.
 
Associate
Joined
25 Feb 2006
Posts
1,094
Location
Sydney
Richdog said:
True, but the penalties for getting caught with it and supplying it etc will be more severe.

I don't think a 14 year old will think about it in that way really.... they will either give into peer pressure or not.......
 
Caporegime
Joined
8 Sep 2005
Posts
26,733
Location
Utopia
Jaap74 said:
I don't think a 14 year old will think about it in that way really.... they will either give into peer pressure or not.......

Agreed but once caught they may think twice about doing it again, especially if the parents are notified.
 
Associate
Joined
22 Jun 2007
Posts
242
Richdog said:
True, but the penalties for getting caught with it and supplying it etc will be more severe.

Thats true in theory, but in practice I don't think it would make much of a difference.

For Class A possession you can get up to 7 years and life for supply.

For Class B you can get up to 5 years for possession and 14 years for supply.

For Class C you can get up to 2 years for possession and 5 years for supply.

All of the above can be with an unlimited fine as well.

I have never known anyone get the maximum for either possession nor supply. I was involved in one job where a suspect was stopped in a vehicle that contained about 40,000 ecstasy micks which is a Class A drug. He received 5 years.

As for the question ... I think Class B is the right classification for Cannabis.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
26 Dec 2003
Posts
16,522
Location
London
Decriminalise it (I'd say legalise it, but that poses too many practical problems with international law).

If there are health problems with it, then they're are exactly that—health problems, to be dealt with by our healthcare infrastructure. The health problems and potential health problems of illegal drugs are the biggest red herring in the debate on legalisation.
 

RDM

RDM

Soldato
Joined
1 Feb 2007
Posts
20,612
Legalise it, licence it, tax it.

It is your body so you should be free to do whatever you want with it. Decriminalise it, legitimise the supply and then you can make sure it is clean, a particular strength and you can keep tabs on who is selling it and to whom. Do the same for all drugs. Educate about the risks and let adults make informed choices.
 
Soldato
Joined
4 Jan 2005
Posts
14,871
robmiller said:
Decriminalise it (I'd say legalise it, but that poses too many practical problems with international law).

If there are health problems with it, then they're are exactly that—health problems, to be dealt with by our healthcare infrastructure. The health problems and potential health problems of illegal drugs are the biggest red herring in the debate on legalisation.

Legalizing it would cause more problems I think - more people would be using, which in turn leads to more health problems and more pressure on the NHS. This costs money, and we're already totally stretched as it is.
 
Soldato
Joined
26 Dec 2003
Posts
16,522
Location
London
KNiVES said:
Legalizing it would cause more problems I think - more people would be using, which in turn leads to more health problems and more pressure on the NHS. This costs money, and we're already totally stretched as it is.

There's no evidence to show that legalisation or even decriminalisation would result in more users of illegal drugs, especially drugs as already widely-used as cannabis.

Also, with a substance as utterly benign as cannabis, the cost benefits from taxation—either levied directly on the product, or in the case of decriminalisation indirectly on the earnings of coffee shops and their employees—would far outweigh any cost to the healthcare system. I mean it's not as if drug dealers currently pay any taxes is it, and yet we still have to bear the cost of the health problems caused by drugs plus the cost of enforcing anti-drug laws plus the cost of imprisoning drug users.

Also, currently our prisons are far more stretched than our hospitals—removing harmless drug users from them (that is, people who are in prison solely because of drug use, not related crimes) would ease the burden substantially.
 
Don
Joined
15 Jan 2006
Posts
31,452
Location
Tosche Station
Either stick in in B or legalise it.

This pussy footing around is pathetic, it might as well be borderline legal at the moment and that's just ridiculous.
 
Associate
Joined
22 Jun 2007
Posts
242
For legalisation, where do you stop?

Can heroin users then say well if cannabis is legal why not heroin? Crack users could say similar? Legalisation may not be as simple as it sounds.
 
Associate
Joined
22 Jun 2007
Posts
242
robmiller said:
Also, currently our prisons are far more stretched than our hospitals—removing harmless drug users from them (that is, people who are in prison solely because of drug use, not related crimes) would ease the burden substantially.

Is that not the the problem though ..... people in custody for drug use alone will be far outweighed by drug users and associated crime. To be jailed for possession of drugs for personal use is almost unheard of now.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
26 Dec 2003
Posts
16,522
Location
London
Zefan said:
Either stick in in B or legalise it.

This pussy footing around is pathetic, it might as well be borderline legal at the moment and that's just ridiculous.

We couldn't legalise it though—not while remaining a member of the UN and EU, anyway. The former's United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances requires member states to criminalise certain substances, and the latter's agencies like EMCDDA and Europol, as well as things like the Schengen Agreement, make legalisation on anything but an EU-wide basis a practical nightmare.

The most liberal drug laws conceivable in the EU and UN are a system of Netherlands-style decriminalisation.
 
Top